4 ms·

In the future, we will live in a garden city and commune with nature and look back on this error of fat people living in skyscrapers as a dark age.

ThinkBeat 2y ago
I agree it would be an improvement for people but a somewhat utopian one. But how do you figure we will do it? Are your factoring in a drastic population decrease? If you flatten out all tall buildings that house XX or XXX apartments you will a lot more space for the city. Which means the cost of rail, trains and a lot of service will increase. It may be a lot like the suburbs, but with the houses closer and shared green space? Is the garden meant to provide food for the people living there? If so who is doing the farming? A return to an agrarian society? I would love to end factory farming, but is not a feasible option to feed as many people as we do today. Which again would be solved be a massiv reduction in the population.
- jononomo 2y ago
  There are 171 million acres in Texas. There are 8 billion people on Earth. So if you gave each family of four a 50x100 foot plot of land (i.e., 5,000 square feet of space), then you could fit eight such plots per acre (with 3,500 square feet to spare for communal space) -- because an acre has 43,560 square feet. So you would be able to fit 32 people per acre, and since Texas has 171 million acres, you would be able to fit 5.4 billion people in Texas. Since the world has more than 5.4 billion people, we will have to conquer Mexico or Oklahoma. Long story short, there will be plenty of space left over in Asia.
  - erkt 2y ago
    Most land is not desirable. Living conditions are limited by water not land.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
stby 2y ago
Seems like you are describing suburbs, but they suck at almost everything. Maybe we should actually think about living in denser but smaller cities, which can provide all necessities, including nature, in walking or cycling distance. This is most likely the key to allow for healthy lifestyles.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  A lot of people "think about it," and many decide not to. Please respect their choice.

ThinkBeat 2y ago

I agree it would be an improvement for people but a somewhat utopian one. But how do you figure we will do it? Are your factoring in a drastic population decrease? If you flatten out all tall buildings that house XX or XXX apartments you will a lot more space for the city. Which means the cost of rail, trains and a lot of service will increase. It may be a lot like the suburbs, but with the houses closer and shared green space? Is the garden meant to provide food for the people living there? If so who is doing the farming? A return to an agrarian society? I would love to end factory farming, but is not a feasible option to feed as many people as we do today. Which again would be solved be a massiv reduction in the population.

jononomo 2y ago
There are 171 million acres in Texas. There are 8 billion people on Earth. So if you gave each family of four a 50x100 foot plot of land (i.e., 5,000 square feet of space), then you could fit eight such plots per acre (with 3,500 square feet to spare for communal space) -- because an acre has 43,560 square feet. So you would be able to fit 32 people per acre, and since Texas has 171 million acres, you would be able to fit 5.4 billion people in Texas. Since the world has more than 5.4 billion people, we will have to conquer Mexico or Oklahoma. Long story short, there will be plenty of space left over in Asia.
- erkt 2y ago
  Most land is not desirable. Living conditions are limited by water not land.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

stby 2y ago

Seems like you are describing suburbs, but they suck at almost everything. Maybe we should actually think about living in denser but smaller cities, which can provide all necessities, including nature, in walking or cycling distance. This is most likely the key to allow for healthy lifestyles.

CamperBob2 2y ago
A lot of people "think about it," and many decide not to. Please respect their choice.